Telangana High Court
WP/33285/2010 of V. Srinivas Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh, Rep. by its on 29 December 2010
MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 33285 OF 2010 Between: V. Srinivasa Reddy, S/o V. Venkata Rami Reddy ………….Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, General Administration
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMEDAND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR
WRIT PETITIONNO. 33285 OF 2010
Between:
V. Srinivasa Reddy, S/o V. Venkata Rami Reddy
………….Petitioner
AND
The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented byits Principal Secretary, General AdministrationDepartment and 12 others
………….Respondents
ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar)
The point that arises for determination in this WritPetition is whether the application of the Writ Petitionerfor the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, whichreached the office of the Inspector General of Police (for short “IGP”) beyond 10.12.2010 can be ordered tobe received.
The point arises in the following circumstances.By the order dated 8.12.2010 the Tribunal granted interim relief as under:
“Interim relief: “ In the light of the abovecircumstances, the respondents are directed toreceive the applications of the applicants and allowthe applicants to participate in the selection processfor recruitment to the post of Assistant PublicProsecutor without insisting on the age requirementin pursuance of the Notification in Rc.No. 516/R&T/Rect.1/2010 dated 12.11.2010issued by the 2[nd] respondent, subject to furtherorders in the O.A.”.
The petitioner says that he dispatched hisapplication for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutorto IGP’s Office, Guntur pursuant to the above order. The said application according to the terms of thenotification was to reach there by 5.00 p.m on10.12.2010. The petitioner says that though hedispatched the application by speed post on themorning of 9.12.2010, the GP’s Office received it on 13.12.2010 and therefore, the said office rejected it andthe petitioner received the cover back.
The petitioner already filed M.A.No. 3748 of 2010in O.A.No. 8709 of 2010 requesting the Tribunal forgiving a direction to the IGP’s Office to receive hisapplication. However, the Tribunal by its order dated23.12.2010 rejected that application on the ground thatsince the application of the petitioner reached the officeof the IGP beyond the stipulated date, the said officewas right in rejecting it. Questioning that order, thepresent Writ Petition is filed.
It may be noted that in any notification invitingapplications for a post either in public employment orotherwise, the appointing authority or the selectionauthority will prescribe the last date for receipt of theapplications and that has been fixed as 10.12.2010 inthis case and the application of the petitioner for thepost in question reached the office of the IGP after thatdate. Hence, the IGP’s office rightly rejected it.
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued atlength and his argument is even if the application isreceived belatedly that is not going to prejudiceanybody, therefore the application be ordered to bereceived. There is no force in his contention. It maybe noted that a cut off date for receipt of applications isprescribed in usual course while entertainingapplications for the posts of public employment. If thesaid cut off date is relaxed they will open a floodgateand many more who have not sent the applications intime will again seek same relief and this is notpermissible. His further plea is that though he
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
dispatched the application within time and though itought to have reached before 10.12.2010 or at least by10.12.2010, the IGP’s Office received it on 13.12.2010and this is not because of any fault on his part butbecause of some postal delay and therefore, he couldnot be denied the right to appear for the examination. May be the petitioner may not be responsible; theCondition No. 12 of the notification expressly says thatthe department shall not be answerable for any postaldelay or loss of the application in present. Hence,going by the above circumstances even though thepetitioner may not be at fault, this Court cannot go tohis rescue now as his application reached to theconcerned authority after the last date prescribed forreceiving the applications. The learned counsel for thepetitioner also could not bring to our notice any legalprovision under which we can grant relief to him.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
________________________
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
______________________
N. RAVI SHANKAR, J
DATE: 29.12.2010KA
To
... REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER
1. 2 CD copies.